An involuntary, chronic or recurrent inadequacy in access to calories, protein, or micronutrients, due to affordability or availability constraints. Operationally, this can be observed as any one of:
No food at all: Zero food consumption for ≥ 2 consecutive days.
Energy shortfall: Consuming ≤ 60% of daily caloric requirement for ≥ 7 consecutive days (and recurrent or sustained).
Protein shortfall: Consuming ≤ 50% of recommended protein intake per kg body weight for ≥ 14 days (and recurrent or sustained).
Micronutrient shortfall: No consumption of fruits, vegetables, or fortified foods for ≥ 21 days (and recurrent or sustained).
Your attempt at food insecurity is appropriate from your perspective, though if I asked half a dozen people for a definition, I'd get half a dozen different answers, each relevant from the individual's perspective.
I tried to make it generic: The state of being without reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food.
Poverty: A state in which a person, or a community, lacks the financial resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living.
I also realize that if I asked half a dozen systems thinkers to create a model of Food Insecurity, I'd get half a dozen different models. Whether they're right or wrong doesn't seem like the appropriate question. I'd prefer to ask, "What can I learn from each of the perspectives?"
I find myself leaning toward Forrester’s view here: causal loop diagrams are most useful when they’re rigorously defined, so that the insights we take from them reflect real-world structures rather than imagined ones. Different perspectives can be a great way to surface assumptions, but I think the real power comes when those perspectives converge into a structure we can test against reality.
I know many people in different camps, which is quite alright with me. It's all just about understanding relationships and their implications. First we crawl, then we walk, and some choose to run, and a few choose to race. Multiple perspectives seem a good basis for extending understanding.
I agree that multiple perspectives are valuable for extending understanding. Once we move to the stage of designing interventions, though, do you believe the models should be rigorously defined to reflect real structures, or is consensus opinion sufficient?
“food insecurity” and “poverty” can have many different meanings and definitions, what is the precise definition you are using here?
And what specific geographical region or country is this diagram?
Here is my attempt for food insecurity
An involuntary, chronic or recurrent inadequacy in access to calories, protein, or micronutrients, due to affordability or availability constraints. Operationally, this can be observed as any one of:
No food at all: Zero food consumption for ≥ 2 consecutive days.
Energy shortfall: Consuming ≤ 60% of daily caloric requirement for ≥ 7 consecutive days (and recurrent or sustained).
Protein shortfall: Consuming ≤ 50% of recommended protein intake per kg body weight for ≥ 14 days (and recurrent or sustained).
Micronutrient shortfall: No consumption of fruits, vegetables, or fortified foods for ≥ 21 days (and recurrent or sustained).
Your attempt at food insecurity is appropriate from your perspective, though if I asked half a dozen people for a definition, I'd get half a dozen different answers, each relevant from the individual's perspective.
I tried to make it generic: The state of being without reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food.
Poverty: A state in which a person, or a community, lacks the financial resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living.
I also realize that if I asked half a dozen systems thinkers to create a model of Food Insecurity, I'd get half a dozen different models. Whether they're right or wrong doesn't seem like the appropriate question. I'd prefer to ask, "What can I learn from each of the perspectives?"
I find myself leaning toward Forrester’s view here: causal loop diagrams are most useful when they’re rigorously defined, so that the insights we take from them reflect real-world structures rather than imagined ones. Different perspectives can be a great way to surface assumptions, but I think the real power comes when those perspectives converge into a structure we can test against reality.
I know many people in different camps, which is quite alright with me. It's all just about understanding relationships and their implications. First we crawl, then we walk, and some choose to run, and a few choose to race. Multiple perspectives seem a good basis for extending understanding.
I agree that multiple perspectives are valuable for extending understanding. Once we move to the stage of designing interventions, though, do you believe the models should be rigorously defined to reflect real structures, or is consensus opinion sufficient?
I think it depends on the level of understanding that's appropriate for the context.